Our Working Paper

The Preparedness Agenda

The State of the UK’s Black-led Impact Organisations in 2025

Building on last year’s Resilience in Motion, this report moves the conversation from endurance to preparedness. Grounded in evidence and guided by the experiences of 115 Black-led organisations, it offers actionable recommendations for funders, policymakers, and advocates working to build a stronger, more secure impact ecosystem.

1. Introduction

2. Characteristics of Respondents

3. Key Findings

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

5. Future Outlook

6. Call to Action

About Do it Now Now

Do it Now Now (DiNN) is a pioneering organisation dedicated to empowering Black-led charities, social enterprises, and grassroots organisations across the UK.

Contact us to find out more about what we are doing to challenge the status quo and increase opportunities for equitable outcomes in the UK’s Black community.

Introduction

At Do it Now Now (DiNN), our work is grounded in a deep understanding of the ecosystems in which diverse-led social impact organisations and businesses operate. A cornerstone of this approach is our Health Check assessment, a comprehensive diagnostic tool we use at the start of our programmes to establish a baseline of each venture's operational capacity.

This report shares the aggregated findings from 115 recent Health Checks conducted across nine of our programmes, providing a unique snapshot of the strengths, challenges, and opportunities facing early-stage, diverse-led ventures today. The cohort comprises a diverse mix of non-profit organisations and for-profit businesses, all at a critical stage of development. By analysing their foundational systems, from governance and finance to HR and strategy, we can identify the key trends that define the landscape and, most importantly, understand how best to support these vital agents of change.

Our Methodology: A Rigorous and Anonymised Approach

To ensure a robust and relevant analysis, we utilised two distinct but parallel Health Check frameworks: one for non-profit organisations and another for for-profit businesses. Each framework is structured around seven key thematic areas, from Governance to Performance Management, and combines qualitative and quantitative methods.

The assessment is conducted as a guided conversation, enabling a deep and nuanced understanding of each venture's context. To quantify the findings, a scoring system from 0 to 4 is applied to a series of detailed sub-questions within each theme. A score of '4' indicates an excellent understanding and comprehensive systems in place, while a '0' reflects no understanding or procedures. To ensure the integrity of this process, the assessments were conducted by a team of carefully selected, competent assessors with vast experience in organisational analysis. For this public report, all data has been aggregated and anonymised to protect the confidentiality of the participating ventures.

Analysis of Non-Profit Ventures

Our analysis began with a deep dive into the 98 non-profit organisations in the cohort. These ventures are the backbone of community-led social change, and understanding their operational health is critical to supporting their missions. The assessment was designed as a system of checks and challenges based on seven key thematic areas, each corresponding to a core pillar of organisational health. For each area, assessors posed a primary open-ended question, with specific probing questions used to gather more detailed information where needed. This conversational yet structured approach allowed for a qualitative understanding of each organisation's practices. The seven key areas of assessment were:

Governance: Examining the clarity of the organisation's mission and vision, the effectiveness of its leadership structure, legal compliance, and succession planning.
Administration: Assessing the technological and operational systems used to manage processes, procedures, and data.
Human Resources Management: Evaluating the organisation's approach to workforce planning, recruitment, performance management, and staff development.
Financial Management: Focusing on the robustness of accounting systems, internal controls, financial planning, and reporting.
Organisational Management: Looking at strategic planning, fundraising, revenue diversification, and communication strategies.
Programme Management: Assessing how the organisation incorporates community and service user needs into its delivery mechanisms.
Programme Performance Management: Evaluating the processes for documenting activities, measuring impact, and using data for planning and iteration.

1. Governance: Anchored by Mission, Hampered by Dependency

Governance is the bedrock of any sustainable organisation. With a strong combined average score of 3.4, the cohort demonstrated a solid understanding of governance principles. However, the data reveals a stark contrast between the power of their mission and the precarity of their leadership structures.

Figure 2: Governance Sub-Theme Average Scores

The Governance section of the Health Check assesses the foundational elements that guide an organisation's strategic direction, ensure legal and ethical integrity, and provide a framework for sustainable leadership. The overall performance in this area, with a combined average score of 3.4, demonstrates a solid, albeit developing, understanding of governance principles among the assessed organisations.

Clarity of Vision & Mission (3.7): This was the strongest performing area, confirming that powerful, lived-experience-driven missions anchor these organisations. This personal connection ensures authenticity and drive. For example, one venture focused on medical equity was founded by a leader who experienced firsthand the underrepresentation of Black individuals in the profession. At the same time, another organisation, addressing gaps in accessible transportation, was established by a founder who acted as a young carer for a family member impacted by a violent crime.

Legal & Regulatory Compliance (3.6): This high score reflects a widespread understanding of the importance of statutory compliance. The vast majority engage external accountants for tax and annual accounts, and many have professional legal support in place, indicating a maturity in recognising the need for professional expertise.

Alignment of Business Structure (3.5): Organisations generally demonstrated a good alignment between their legal structure (e.g., CIC, CIO) and their mission. Several noted that their choice to transition from one structure to another was strategically driven by the need to access a wider pool of grant funding, a positive indicator of organisational maturity.

Board Governance & Documentation (3.3): Performance in this area was mixed. While many organisations reported having a board, the level of engagement varied significantly. Some showcased robust governance with highly engaged, strategic boards that meet regularly. In contrast, a notable number exhibited more informal arrangements, with one founder describing their directors as being there "in name only" and another holding board meetings on an "informal and ad-hoc basis." This places a heavy burden of governance and strategic planning on the founder.

Leadership Succession Planning (2.8): This was unequivocally the weakest area, highlighting a systemic "founder dependency." The qualitative data is abundant with founders acknowledging their indispensable role. One founder of an advocacy organisation stated, "I am the brain and passion of the organisation; if there weren’t me, the orgs would have closed down", a sentiment echoed by many. Although some had started considering succession by training a deputy, very few had a formal, actionable plan, which posed a significant risk to long-term sustainability.

2. Administration: Solid Policies, Developing Systems

The administrative backbone of the cohort is functional but reveals a digital divide, with a consistent combined average score of 3.3. Organisations are generally proficient at creating the necessary policies; however, they may lack the sophisticated IT infrastructure to support them fully.

Figure 3: Bar Graph showing Administration Sub-thematic average scores

Operational Policies & Procedures (3.4): Most organisations have essential policies (Safeguarding, GDPR, EDI) in place. More developed ventures not only possessed these documents but also had clear systems for review and dissemination. For example, one youth services organisation with over 40 policies uses a quiz system to ensure staff read and understand them.
IT Systems & Procedures (3.3): The technological landscape is highly varied. While many effectively use low-cost tools like Google Workspace and accounting software, a significant number still rely on manual, paper-based systems or basic spreadsheets. For instance, one community organisation consciously maintains paper copies of all policies, while another's reliance on manual bookkeeping with no digital backup presents a significant operational risk.

3. Human Resources: A Commitment to People Without the Process

With a combined average score of 3.0, HR is an area of developing capacity. There is a powerful, inherent commitment to diversity and fair pay, but the formal systems to strategically manage talent are often lacking.

Figure 4: Human Resources Sub-thematic average scores

Job Descriptions & Staff Recruitment (3.1): Most organisations demonstrated a pragmatic approach to workforce planning, often dictated by project-based funding. This has led to a heavy reliance on freelancers and volunteers rather than permanent PAYE staff. Recruitment methods are a blend of formal and informal approaches. More established organisations use formal job sites, but a more common strategy is to recruit via word-of-mouth and community networks. This approach, while less formal, ensures that new hires often have lived experience and are deeply embedded in the communities they serve.
Volunteer Recruitment (3.1): Volunteer recruitment follows a similar community-centric pattern, with many organisations drawing volunteers from their local area or from past service users. This creates a passionate and committed volunteer base. However, several organisations noted the significant resources required to train and manage volunteers effectively, with one leader of a cycling-focused venture noting that volunteers often "move on to greener pastures" after being trained.
Staffing Levels Management (3.1): The management of staffing levels is reactive mainly and tied to funding cycles. The heavy reliance on freelancers allows for flexibility, with organisations scaling their workforce up or down on a project-by-project basis. However, this model creates a lack of job security and can hinder the development of a stable, core team.
Workforce Diversity Tracking (3.1): Nearly every organisation reported a workforce that reflects the global majority communities they serve. This is a powerful, inherent strength. However, the high score is somewhat misleading, as the qualitative data reveal that while teams are diverse, this is often an organic outcome of their mission rather than the result of formal tracking. For example, one girls' sports organisation noted they hadn't been "intentional about it" but that their team naturally reflected their community.
Salary & Benefits Management (3.0): There is a strong, widespread commitment to fair pay, with many organisations being accredited Living Wage Employers. However, the financial precarity of the sector is a major challenge. Many founders and directors reported being unpaid or taking minimal salaries to keep their organisations afloat, an unsustainable model reliant on personal sacrifice.
Performance Management (2.8) & Staff Skills Development (2.9): These two sub-themes were the lowest-scoring areas in HR, revealing a significant gap in strategic workforce development. The overwhelming trend is a reliance on informal performance management. Phrases such as "on the go," "informal check-ins," and "ad-hoc feedback" are prevalent in the qualitative data. This approach, while flexible, lacks the structure to formally track progress, address underperformance, or identify development needs systematically. In contrast, high-performing organisations have implemented more structured systems, with one youth empowerment charity utilising a 360-degree feedback system overseen by an HR consultant. Skills development follows a similar pattern, with most training being reactive and dependent on free courses offered by local authorities or partner organisations.

4. Financial Management

Financial management is a key area of concern, with a combined average score of 3.3. While organisations are proficient at day-to-day financial tasks, they show clear vulnerabilities in strategic financial oversight.

Figure 5: Financial Management Sub-thematic average scores

Accounting, Reporting, and Funder Compliance (3.4): This cluster of high-scoring areas indicates that most organisations have reliable systems for day-to-day financial recording, with widespread adoption of digital accounting software. They are adept at tracking restricted grants and meeting funder compliance demands.
Financial Planning & Budgeting (3.3): Most organisations engage in some form of financial planning, but their funding model heavily influences the scope of this planning. For the majority, budgeting is a reactive exercise tied to specific, short-term project grants, making long-term strategic planning a significant challenge.
Internal Controls, Risk Management, and Audits (3.1): This was the most significant area of financial vulnerability. The primary concern cited by nearly every organisation is the precariousness of grant funding and the resulting cash flow instability. A critical indicator of this is the state of financial reserves, with a large number of organisations reporting having no reserves at all, leaving them highly exposed.

5. Organisational Management

This theme highlights the central paradox for many non-profits. With a combined average of 3.1, the data shows they are dynamic and entrepreneurial, but are building on unstable financial foundations.

Figure 6: Organisational Management average scores, sub-thematic average scores

Strategic & Operational Planning (3.3 & 3.1): Most organisations have a strategic plan that guides their work, often developed collaboratively with stakeholders. However, for many, planning is reactive to funding calls rather than proactively driving the fundraising agenda. Operational plans are generally in place but are often less formal and not always documented with the same rigour as the overarching strategic plan.
Business Development & Decision-Making (3.4): These were the strongest performing areas, indicating a dynamic and networked cohort. Organisations excel at identifying and capitalising on new opportunities through partnerships and community connections, with some exploring innovative models like franchising. Decision-making processes are also a key strength, reflecting the collaborative and community-centric approach taken by most organisations, often involving service users in the process.
Finance Strategy & Sustainability (2.6): This was the lowest-scoring area in the entire assessment. It reflects an overwhelming and unsustainable reliance on restricted, project-based grant funding. The narrative from participants was filled with frustration over the "start and stop" cycle of grants, which hinders long-term planning and investment in core infrastructure. There were, however, inspiring outliers who have successfully built mixed-income models, combining grants with trading arms and sponsorships, providing a crucial roadmap for the sector.
Communication Strategy (2.9): This area was also underdeveloped. While most organisations have a presence on social media and a website, many lack a formal, documented communication strategy that targets different stakeholders with clear objectives, often due to a lack of capacity.

6. Programme Management

This area was a significant strength, with a high combined average score of 3.4. This confirms that the cohort is deeply connected to the communities they serve, with community-centric and co-production models being widespread and genuinely practised.

Figure 7: Programme Management Sub-Theme Average Scores

Community Involvement in Planning (3.5): This was one of the highest-scoring sub-themes in the entire assessment. Many organisations have established formal structures, such as Youth Advisory Boards, or use regular community consultations and focus groups to ensure their work is genuinely needs-led. One youth organisation, for example, uses youth-led focus groups to inform its programme design from the outset.
Integration of Culture and Inclusion (3.3): Cultural and ethnic relevance is not an add-on but is woven into the fabric of delivery. This is exemplified by ventures that employ volunteer translators for non-English speaking participants or celebrate diverse cultures through activities like community cooking sessions.

7. Programme Performance Management

This final theme for non-profits was another area of significant strength, also scoring a high combined average of 3.4. This indicates a strong commitment to evidence-based practice and continuous improvement.

Figure 8: Programme Performance Management Sub-Theme Average Scores

Service Delivery Standards (3.4), Funder Responsiveness (3.5), and Data Use in Programmes (3.4): These high scores confirm that organisations are highly capable of meeting funder reporting requirements and adhering to recognised service delivery standards, with some holding quality marks like PQASSO or meeting Ofsted standards. They have established systems for collecting performance data, including pre- and post-programme surveys, feedback forms, and case studies.
Documentation & Reporting (3.3) and Performance Gap Analysis (3.3): Crucially, the data shows this information is actively used to inform and iterate programme delivery. One organisation, for instance, explained how feedback from a single event led them to expand from one type of activity to a model based on five distinct pillars, demonstrating a genuine learning culture. This commitment to using data for continuous improvement is a hallmark of a resilient organisation.

Analysis of For-Profit Ventures

This section of the report shifts the focus to the for-profit businesses that participated in the Health Check assessments. It is essential to emphasise that these are commercial entities whose primary objective is to generate profit, thereby distinguishing them from the non-profit organisations previously discussed. The For-Profit Health Checks were conducted with businesses in programmes specifically designed to support commercial ventures: Innovate Now Round 4, Build Hustle Grow Round 1, and Build Hustle Grow Round 2.

The assessment for these businesses was guided by a distinct framework tailored to the unique challenges and opportunities of the for-profit sector. The goal of this exercise was to establish a clear baseline of their commercial and operational capabilities. This diagnostic is crucial for providing targeted support to help these businesses scale, improve their financial performance, and build long-term operational resilience in competitive markets.

Similar to the non-profit version, the For-Profit Health Check was structured around seven key thematic areas, each exploring a critical aspect of business health. A scoring system from 0 to 4 was used to quantify the findings. The seven key areas of assessment were:

Leadership and Governance: Evaluating the effectiveness of the leadership in driving the business's mission and strategy, the adequacy of the governance structure, and legal/corporate compliance.
Financial Health and Sustainability: Assessing the robustness of financial planning, risk management, revenue diversification, and internal controls.
Operations and Technology: Examining the efficiency and scalability of operational processes and the use of technology to drive growth.
Workforce Management: Focusing on strategies for recruitment, retention, performance management, and workforce development.
Market and Customer Insights: Assessing the business's comprehension of market trends and its approaches to customer acquisition and retention.
Innovation and Competitive Edge: Assessing the business's capacity for innovation and its ability to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage.
Social Impact and Ethical Practices: Examining how the business integrates social, environmental, and ethical considerations into its operations.

1. Leadership and Governance

With a combined average of 2.9, governance in the for-profit cohort is less developed than in the non-profit sector. The story is one of strong, visionary leadership that has not yet been supplemented with formal oversight.

Figure 9: Leadership & Governance Sub-Theme Average Scores

Mission & Strategy Execution (3.6): This was the highest-scoring area, demonstrating that the businesses are led by founders with a clear and compelling vision. These leaders are effective at translating their mission into action. For example, a natural drinks company in the cohort has a clear mission to serve underserved communities and executes this through a well-defined strategy involving subcontractors and university partnerships. Similarly, an inclusive restaurant is built around a powerful mission of providing dining experiences for people with diverse dietary requirements, a principle that the founder ensures is held by all staff.
Legal & Regulatory Compliance (3.3): Businesses generally demonstrate a solid understanding of their legal obligations. This is particularly evident among the more established businesses, with one food and culture venture engaging a solicitor and an accountant to manage legal administration, VAT, and pensions, indicating a mature approach to compliance.
Governance Oversight & Support (2.9): This is where a notable development gap appears. While founders are strong visionaries, the external governance structures to support and challenge them are often lacking. Some businesses have established advisory teams, but many, particularly early-stage ventures, are sole-founder operations with informal or non-existent boards.
Leadership Succession Planning (2.0): Mirroring the findings in the non-profit cohort, succession planning is a critical vulnerability that is even more pronounced. The very low score highlights an acute "founder dependency." The qualitative data shows that most businesses are entirely reliant on the founder for strategy and vision, with one founder noting their venture was a "just me" operation. This lack of planning poses a significant long-term risk to the viability and scalability of these enterprises.

2. Financial Health

With a combined average score of 2.7, financial health is a significant challenge for these early-stage businesses. While competent at day-to-day budget monitoring, they lack the strategic financial planning and reserves needed for sustainable growth.

Figure 10: Financial Health & Sustainability Sub-Theme Average Scores

Financial Planning & Reserves (2.2): This was the most significant area of vulnerability for the cohort. The qualitative data highlights that many early-stage businesses operate with little to no financial reserves. One early-stage coaching business reported having no financial reserves and facing the end of its grant funding. Another community-focused educational venture acknowledged having "no sustainable model" and relying on inconsistent grants. The absence of a financial safety net makes it challenging to invest in growth or navigate periods of low revenue. In contrast, more developed businesses, such as a natural drinks company in the cohort, understand the importance of reserves, maintaining them to ensure they can always fund production runs and manage variable payment cycles.
Revenue Diversification (2.8): Businesses clearly understand the need to diversify their revenue streams, although the ability to execute this strategy varies. High-performers are actively expanding their sales channels across both B2B and B2C markets. An inclusive restaurant, for instance, aims to expand its operations by entering the lucrative catering market. However, for many, diversification is still an aspiration rather than a reality. One educational venture remains 100% reliant on grants, a high-risk model that the business itself identified. The data suggests that while founders have ideas for diversification, they often lack the capital or capacity to implement them effectively.
Internal Financial Controls (2.7): Performance in this area is mixed. More established businesses have adopted professional systems to manage their finances. For instance, a food and culture venture utilises QuickBooks for accounting, a dedicated system for tracking staff hours, and business insurance, along with risk assessments. This demonstrates a mature approach to safeguarding assets. However, many of the earlier-stage businesses rely on manual or basic systems. One inclusive restaurant, for instance, still tracks its budget manually, while a social impact design lab outsources its year-end accounts but lacks a structured internal financial plan. This reliance on founder oversight and basic tools can become a significant risk as the business scales.
Budget Monitoring & Funding (3.0): This was the strongest sub-theme within Financial Health, indicating that founders are generally diligent in monitoring their day-to-day budgets and cash flow, a necessity for survival in a start-up environment. More established businesses conduct quarterly reviews to monitor progress against targets, while one community-focused venture uses a spreadsheet to track its grant applications and outcomes. This operational competence provides a solid foundation, but it requires complementation with more strategic, forward-looking financial planning, an area where the cohort currently struggles.

3. Operations and Technology: Tools Without a System

With a combined average of 3.1, this area highlights a common start-up challenge: adopting digital tools without having the documented processes to support them.

Figure 11: Operations & Technology Sub-Theme Average Scores

Technology Utilisation (3.2): This was a key strength. Founders are adept at using digital tools for everything from point-of-sale systems to CRMs. More advanced businesses, like an inclusive restaurant in the cohort, have integrated systems to manage multiple delivery apps from a single terminal and have built their own CRM, demonstrating a sophisticated use of technology to drive efficiency.
Operational Efficiency & Scalability (2.9): This was a weakness. The processes often "reside in the founder's head" and are not formally documented. One founder of an educational venture acknowledged that their processes were not in a formal manual, with everything residing "in their head," a significant barrier to scaling the business and onboarding new team members. In contrast, a high-performing natural drinks company learned from previous "horrendous production runs" to create robust checklists and standardised processes, making it a more scalable enterprise.
Policy Adherence (3.1) & Risk Management (3.1): Performance in these areas is moderate. Most businesses have essential policies in place, particularly those related to industry-specific regulations like food safety. Risk management is often reactive and based on experience rather than a documented, proactive framework.

4. Workforce Management: Diversity by Default, HR by Ad-Hoc

This was the weakest thematic area for the for-profit cohort, with a combined average of 2.7. It reveals a need for significant development in formal HR systems.

Figure 12: Workforce Management Sub−Theme Average Scores

Diversity & Inclusion (3.3): The standout strength was Diversity & Inclusion. As with the non-profits, this is an authentic and lived reality, with teams naturally reflecting the communities they serve. As one founder of a natural drinks company stated, "It's not a tick box for us, we need a diverse team or we can't serve our community properly." This authentic commitment to inclusion is a significant competitive advantage.
Recruitment & Retention (2.3): This was the weakest area, reflecting the informal and often reactive recruitment processes of early-stage businesses. Many ventures, such as food and culture initiatives, recruit from their immediate community and rely on unsolicited CVs. While this can build a loyal team, it is not a scalable strategy for growth. Early-stage ventures often prioritise enthusiasm and values alignment over experience, a common trait among start-ups that highlights a lack of formal recruitment processes.
Performance & Development (2.6): Similar to recruitment, performance and development systems are largely informal. While founders are often hands-on and provide direct feedback, structured appraisal systems and formal training plans are rare. An inclusive restaurant, for example, offers development opportunities "organically," with the founder in the process of creating a training manual. This contrasts with more mature businesses that provide formal, certified training for all staff.
Salary & Benefits Compliance (2.7): Businesses demonstrate a baseline competence in meeting compliance. More established businesses pay above the London minimum wage and offer a service charge. However, the financial constraints on many early-stage founders are evident, with some reporting not taking a salary at all, a shared sacrifice that highlights the economic fragility that can prevent the implementation of formal, competitive compensation structures.

5. Market and Customer Insights: Strong Intuition, Weak Acquisition

With a combined average of 3.0, businesses demonstrate a solid understanding of their market but struggle with the mechanics of reaching it.

Figure 13: Market and Customer Insights Sub−Theme Average Scores

Market Trends Understanding (3.1): The cohort demonstrates a firm, intuitive grasp of their respective markets. High-performers supplement this intuition with formal market intelligence, using industry reports for data-driven insights. In contrast, others conduct rigorous field research, running taste tests and pilot launches to gather direct feedback before a full rollout.
Customer Feedback Use (3.1): This is a clear strength, with businesses excelling at using customer feedback to refine their products. One food business, for example, completely refined its menu based on direct customer feedback, identifying a "hero product", an inclusive pancake recipe that catered to multiple dietary needs, that is now central to its brand and a key revenue driver.
Competitive Advantage (3.1): This deep customer understanding often translates into a strong, unique selling proposition (USP). This is usually rooted in cultural authenticity or a specific community niche. For instance, one venture's unique, family-recipe-based menu, combined with a rich cultural experience of music and storytelling, sets it apart in a crowded market. Similarly, another community-focused enterprise has carved out a distinct niche by creating intimate, playful events for a specific demographic, differentiating itself from larger, more generic events.
Customer Acquisition & Retention (2.8): This was the weakest area. Businesses often rely on informal, single-channel marketing strategies. One founder, for instance, has a strong presence on TikTok but has struggled to convert that engagement into actual clients, indicating a breakdown in their sales funnel. Others rely heavily on professional networks and repeat business, which, while valuable for retention, points to a limited and potentially unscalable strategy for acquiring new customers.

6. Innovation and Competitive Edge

This theme, with a combined average of 2.9, confirms the innovative spirit of the cohort. The Culture of Innovation (3.2) was a particular strength, with founders developing unique products and services rooted in their lived experiences and cultural knowledge. This innovation is often the source of their sustainable competitive advantage.

Figure 14: Innovation and Competitive Edge Sub−Theme Average Scores

Culture of Innovation (3.2): This was a particular strength, reflecting that these businesses are often founded to solve a problem the founder has personally experienced. Innovation is therefore organic and deeply embedded. One drinks company, for example, is a market-first mover in its unique, natural flavour combinations, while an inclusive restaurant has pioneered a menu that successfully caters to five different dietary requirements without compromising on quality, a feat its founder notes is rare in the sector.
Sustainable Competitive Advantages (3.1): The competitive edge for these businesses is almost always their authenticity and deep cultural or community connection. One food and culture venture, for instance, uses the founder's family recipes and integrates music and storytelling into the dining experience, creating a unique cultural event that larger, more generic competitors cannot easily replicate.
Future Preparedness (2.6) & Market Positioning (2.8): These areas were weaker. While the product or service is innovative, the long-term strategy for adapting to future market shifts and solidifying a defensible market position is less developed. The focus is often on the immediate product rather than on building a long-term strategic moat around the business, indicating a need for support in strategic foresight and brand positioning.

7. Social Impact and Ethical Practices

With a high combined average of 3.1, this final theme confirms that these are mission-driven businesses. Social Responsibility (3.3) was a key strength, as founders embedded social and environmental values directly into their product design, supply chains, and business models, from using sustainable packaging to creating employment opportunities for their local community.

Figure 15: Social Impact and Ethical Practices Sub−Theme Average Scores

Social & Environmental Commitment (3.1) & Social Responsibility (3.3): These were key strengths, with founders embedding social and environmental values directly into their business models. Examples include a drinks company committed to using 100% renewable energy in its manufacturing and sustainable packaging, and a restaurant that prioritises sourcing ingredients from the local community and has future plans to create employment opportunities for ex-offenders.
Ethical Sourcing & Supply Chain (2.9) & Transparency & Accountability (2.9): These scores were slightly lower. This indicates that while the commitment to ethical practice is strong, the formal systems for managing, documenting, and auditing the entire supply chain, and for transparently reporting on social impact to stakeholders, are still in the early stages of development for many of these businesses.

Conclusion

The findings from our Health Checks paint a clear and consistent picture. An incredible passion, a deep connection to community, and an authentic commitment to diversity and inclusion power the early-stage, diverse-led social impact sector. These ventures are rich in vision and agile in identifying opportunities.

However, this potential is constrained by systemic challenges that manifest as specific, recurring operational vulnerabilities. For non-profits, the data reveals a significant disparity between their impactful, mission-driven work and the stability of their foundations. While they excel at community engagement and programme delivery, they are often hampered by a critical "founder dependency" that leaves little room for succession planning. This is compounded by a precarious financial reality, characterised by a widespread lack of reserves and an over-reliance on a funding ecosystem that prioritises short-term, project-based grants, resulting in a draining "start-and-stop" cycle.

For for-profit businesses, a similar paradox emerges in what we term the "founder's dilemma." The founder is the venture's greatest asset, the source of its innovative vision and deep market intuition, but also its most significant risk. This is reflected in an acute dependency that creates a "scalability barrier," where core processes are not yet documented. While these businesses demonstrate an authentic commitment to diversity and a strong product-market fit, they often face a significant "acquisition gap," struggling to convert their strong brand into systematic, scalable customer growth.

This is where targeted, expert capacity-building becomes essential. The challenges identified in this report, from founder dependency and the scalability barrier to the lack of reserves and underdeveloped financial strategies, are precisely the areas our programmes are designed to address. By providing tailored, hands-on support, we can help these vital organisations and businesses build the resilient operational and financial foundations they need not only to survive but thrive. Their mission is clear; our role is to help them build the engine to deliver it, sustainably and at scale.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Entrepreneurs and Organisational Leaders

Black-led organisations, whether non-profit, social enterprise, or impact-driven business, are leading transformative work under immense pressure. Strengthening preparedness means moving from reactive survival to proactive security.

Prioritise organisational continuity.
Reduce founder dependency by documenting systems, delegating authority, and building capable second-line leadership. Succession planning is not a luxury, it’s a resilience strategy.
Build financial buffers and diversify income.
Develop mixed-income models that combine grants, trading revenue, contracts, or investment. Prioritise the creation of reserves and cashflow planning to withstand funding gaps.
Invest in operational infrastructure.
Digital, HR, and financial systems are the backbone of stability. Allocate time and resources to professionalise internal processes, automation and strong admin free up energy for mission delivery.
Formalise learning and impact measurement.
Track, evaluate, and communicate outcomes clearly. Evidence of impact strengthens your voice with funders, investors, and policymakers and builds credibility within your community.
Protect leadership wellbeing.
Embed mental health, peer support, and boundary-setting practices into your governance and culture. Sustainable impact depends on sustainable leaders.
Collaborate for power.
Participate in alliances, consortium bids, and shared infrastructure projects. Collective strategies multiply voice, influence, and access to capital.

Recommendations for Grantmakers and Philanthropic Funders

Philanthropy has the power to either reinforce precarity or transform it. Resilience across the Black impact sector will only be achieved when funding systems invest in preparedness and equity, not just projects.

Fund infrastructure, not just innovation.
Invest in the systems that keep organisations alive: finance, governance, HR, and technology. Long-term resilience depends on these foundations.
Shift to multi-year, flexible funding.
Replace short, project-restricted grants with multi-year, core-support funding that enables strategic growth and planning.
Simplify access and rebalance power.
Design application and reporting processes that reflect the capacity of smaller organisations. Engage Black-led organisations in co-creating assessment criteria and success metrics.
Support leadership development and wellbeing.
Allow funding for executive coaching, counselling, and rest periods; the health of leaders determines the health of the organisations they run.
Strengthen evidence ecosystems.
Fund sector-wide data collection, learning networks, and shared evaluation tools to generate insight and drive collective improvement.
Adopt equity-centered decision-making.
Diversify decision panels and fund management teams, ensuring that those closest to the issues influence how capital is distributed.

Recommendations for Social Investors and Impact Finance Institutions

Investment models must evolve to match the realities of community-rooted, purpose-led ventures. Preparedness for investors means adapting finance to meet social value, not the other way around.

Develop mission-aligned financial instruments.
Use blended finance, patient equity, and recoverable grants to provide right-sized, accessible capital to Black-led impact ventures.
Lower barriers to entry.
Simplify due diligence and de-risk early-stage investment by partnering with trusted intermediaries who understand community contexts.
Pair capital with capacity.
Integrate technical assistance; governance, finance, marketing, into every investment. Capital without capability doesn’t build preparedness.
Value social return and community wealth.
Incorporate social and cultural value metrics alongside financial returns. Reward ventures for inclusive employment, ethical supply chains, and local reinvestment.
Be transparent and accountable.
Publicly share who receives investment, how decisions are made, and what the long-term impacts are. Transparency strengthens trust and legitimacy.
Invest for ecosystem change.
Work collaboratively with grantmakers, intermediaries, and policy bodies to co-create a capital ecosystem that truly supports Black-led impact growth.

A Call to Preparedness

Resilience has carried us this far, but it will not carry us through the decade ahead.
Preparedness is what comes next.

Preparedness means more than surviving; it means securing our foundations so that the next generation of Black leaders does not inherit precarity as the norm. It means building reserves, embedding systems, investing in people, and demanding accountability from those who hold power and resources.

Every entrepreneur, every grantmaker, every social investor, and every partner has a role to play in this next phase.
The task before us is collective: to safeguard the organisations that safeguard our communities.

We cannot afford another cycle of underinvestment, burnout, and fragmentation. The evidence is clear, our sector’s strength is real, but it is exposed. The time to act is not when crisis strikes; the time to act is now.

Let this report be a line in the sand, a declaration that resilience alone is no longer enough.
Preparedness is our shared strategy for survival, sustainability, and self-determination.

Together, we can move from reacting to shaping; from endurance to influence; from resilience to readiness.
The future of the Black impact sector will not just be protected, it will be prepared.

Join DiNN Community

DiNN Community is a safe and intentional online platform available to all Black individuals and leaders wanting to access resources, network, and share research and lived experiences.

Learn more